Update block validation script to use reflink

[wileyj]

Update block validation script to use less disk

• if slice dir or supplied local chainstate is mounted on an xfs partition with reflink enabled, use it to reduce storage required (cp_arg)
• removed html output, only create the txt file recording the results of all validation processes
• cleanup and comments

The diff is larger than the change suggests from the comment/formatting cleanup, as well as removing the html output which isn't particularly useful for this script in this repo (better to handle that, if desired, in a wrapper script or separate process).

The main changes here are the addition of checking for a reflink enabled disk, and setting a specific cp arg if it's available for the filesystem where the chainstate, or (in the case of downloading an archive) where the slice data is.

this allows for multiple copies of the chainstate with no addtional required storage (ex: 12 copies of the chainstate uses ~1.1TB, whereas in the past it would be close to 6TB).

Previous functionality persists, so if you run this on an ext4 etc partition, it will execute as it has in the past.

cc @cylewitruk

[wileyj]

One thing to note, i have not run shellcheck on this - if you do, there are likely several (many) things to fix but i felt it was better to get this change merged and update later since it's only a helper/testing script.

[federico-stacks]

There is an issue with check_reflink that need to be addressed.
I also added a bunch of nits while looking at the script. Feel free to address them or keep them for later as you mentioned here: #6999 (comment)

[federico-stacks]

check_reflink logic should work properly now. Added a couple of nits coming from the fixes

[wileyj]

@cylewitruk-stacks mentioned an alternate way to check/use reflink which would apply to other filesytem types vs the xfs only option in this PR.

will try and refactor slightly to account for non-xfs but reflink enabled filesystems (currently i'm checking specifically for xfs via the xfs_info binary which obviously will not work for btrfs/apfs etc)

[wileyj]

@cylewitruk-stacks mentioned an alternate way to check/use reflink which would apply to other filesytem types vs the xfs only option in this PR.

will try and refactor slightly to account for non-xfs but reflink enabled filesystems (currently i'm checking specifically for xfs via the xfs_info binary which obviously will not work for btrfs/apfs etc)

Refactored - seems to work well!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 23864564498

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 1325 unchanged lines in 51 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 85.712%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
libsigner/src/session.rs	1	65.41%
stackslib/src/burnchains/burnchain.rs	1	71.93%
stackslib/src/chainstate/stacks/index/node.rs	1	86.61%
stackslib/src/chainstate/stacks/miner.rs	1	83.37%
stackslib/src/clarity_vm/clarity.rs	1	93.7%
stackslib/src/net/download/nakamoto/download_state_machine.rs	1	90.57%
stackslib/src/net/mod.rs	1	77.99%
stackslib/src/net/stackerdb/mod.rs	1	87.13%
stackslib/src/util_lib/bloom.rs	1	92.48%
stacks-signer/src/client/stacks_client.rs	1	86.19%

Totals
Change from base Build 23400582460:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	186632
Relevant Lines:	217744

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jcnelson]

If it works, then it works. I don't think this is in CI yet, but have you run shellcheck on the new script? I don't think I saw any footguns, but shellcheck can find them better than I can ;)

[wileyj]

If it works, then it works. I don't think this is in CI yet, but have you run shellcheck on the new script? I don't think I saw any footguns, but shellcheck can find them better than I can ;)

it wasn't done on this update, only the original script.
will do them now -i'm 100% certain there will be changes required (unquoted variables and such).

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.